Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 135

< Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Amatulic in topic Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The PACE Centre, Aylesbury
Archive 130←Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137→Archive 140

White People Party Music

Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

Some admin deleted the page because a blocked user created it, but it was perfectly fine page that I had worked on. -Koala15 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  Not done You'll have to take that up with JamesBWatson, since he's the admin who deleted it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I already did and he wasn't interested in working with me. I really don't see the problem here it's a notable album that was deleted for no good reason whatsoever. Koala15 (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know where you get that he's not interested in working with you, he said in his talk page that he will get back to you in about a week. You should just wait then, the content is not going anywhere. Since I'm not aware of the circumstances surrounding the G5 deletion, I can't restore it (and neither will any other admin). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Check his talk page history he wasn't interested in helping. Can you put a copy of the page in my sandbox so I don't have to recreate it from scratch? That would be great. Koala15 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
His reply to you was: I am not aware of having made a mistake. I will happily explain my reasons to you, and discuss your concerns, if you like. However, unfortunately I do not have time to do so now, and I shall be unable to edit Wikipedia for about a week. I hope you can manage to wait that long. You should wait for a week. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Check his history he deleted the other conversation. Why can't you just give me a copy of the page? A week would be too long too wait for a high traffic page like this. Koala15 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that is relevant, I would have deleted this off my talk page without even breaking a sweat. Of course once you calmed down and asked in a nicer way, he replied appropriately. There is no deadline and the article should stay deleted until the deleting admin either says otherwise, is banned or stops contributing altogether. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Why can't just give me a copy of it? I wanted to work on the page anyway. I don't know what I did to deserve this I guess help out on this website too much. What's the Pont of admins if they won't be nice or help you. Koala15 (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I can tell you the original creator was User:123lovee. If you can follow the trail to the SPI then maybe you can find an admin familiar with the case and ask them to undelete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but they had nothing to do with the deletion of this page, so why would they help me? I'm gonna recreate this page before the day's over whether you help me or not. But as a fellow editor it would be nice if you could help me out and give me a copy of the page. But I guess the day's of admins being helpful are over. Koala15 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It often happens that articles deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G5 are valid notable topics, and would be kept if it weren't for the identity of the creator. In any case, an article can be deleted as G5 only if it has had no substantial edits by others. In this case, Koala15 expanded the article by about 30% before it was deleted, which seems substantial enough. This article did not qualify for deletion. It was deleted in error. Errors should be corrected, particularly if the erring administrator is not available to do so.
FreeRangeFrog, I am minded to restore the article in place, without userfication. Do you object? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Not at all, I made an offer to userify in Koala's talk page already, because I feel these deletions are kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How about we restore everything after the banned user? That should work for everyone. And I'll let James know as well. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Are we gonna reinstate this or what? Cause i'm 100% sure JamesBWatson made a mistake. Koala15 (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you gonna exercise some patience? We aren't full time employees of Wikipedia. We're volunteers, with our own careers, families, and many other real-life priorities that are way more important than your desire to see the article back up. Believe me, the restoration of this article is not a priority. In any case, I have restored it just now, minus the early history from the banned user. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ultra Vanity Testosterone

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article is a work-in-progress and was deleted stating that there was no "significance" to the band. There is a plethora of information that I am adding to the article that clearly showcases the significance of the group, so I would like the original article to be made available to me so I can continue building it. Thank you. -Kershawdraw (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I did a little searching and I honestly couldn't find anything to suggest that this band would ever pass notability guidelines per WP:BAND. Being re-tweeted by a notable person doesn't really give notability in and of itself due to the sheer frequency of people re-tweeting various posts, and the Dat Piff source wouldn't really give notability either since it's part of something that the band wrote themselves, and is thus considered to be WP:PRIMARY. Also, I saw that you'd used press releases as sources, which are also considered to be primary sources regardless of where they are posted. We'd really need more in-depth coverage to show that the band is notable enough for an entry and I couldn't really find anything that wasn't WP:PRIMARY, WP:TRIVIAL, or in sources that we would consider to be reliable per WP:RS. I just don't see where they'd pass notability guidelines and I think that deletion via AfD or another speedy would likely be inevitable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Missing Shoe Legend

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(This user used the preload form for AFC undeletion, but did not specify the name of the AFC draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) Dknightsway8 (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done It's an interesting urban legend, but it had several issues with it. First is that there were no sources to show how this particular urban legend is notable. We're not looking for it to be true, but we do need coverage in WP:RS to show that this urban legend has been discussed somewhere except forums and other places that don't count as reliable sources. Secondly, the tone in the article did not fit what we expect from a neutral and encyclopedic entry per WP:NPOV. Thirdly, I did a search and I can't find anything to show that this urban legend actually exists. We're not a place to spark off or propogate urban legends, especially when you're trying to link a celebrity into said urban legend. Finally and most importantly, it bothers me that you uploaded seemingly unrelated photos to add to an article about an urban legend concerning a little girl that takes shoes from various people before they die. Not only would that be considered original research (WP:OR), but it is likely also a violation of their personal rights that you're uploading images of them seemingly without their permission in relation to an urban legend. You may have had their permission to take their pictures, but I don't know that they'd be fine with you uploading them for something like this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robbie Steinhouse

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  This was requested by 82.69.67.70 (talk · contribs), but the request was malformed. I am merely restoring it on their behalf and have no opinion one way or another on the merits of the request. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  Not done I did some WP:BEFORE and I think it's clear the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. Which makes sense given it was rejected three times by the AFC reviewers. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Teyem

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

reason for deletion was that it is believed to be no significance with the artist, however there are many bands and artist with less fan base and who are still upcoming like this one and all deserve to be on wiki. people search this artist on google and can never find a clear bio, i just created on on wiki, i believe this page should not be deleted. -140.159.2.36 (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • On a side note, I couldn't find anything to show that this band passes notability guidelines as a whole. The problem with saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that the existence of other articles does not mean that this band should have an article. The other bands/artists could pass notability guidelines in ways that this band does not or more likely, they just haven't been found and deleted yet. As far as showing information goes, we can only have information on subjects that pass our notability guidelines and we can't have articles just to be useful for other people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Pauline_Nordin

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

asked for help but never received info on requested help would like to fix what is need to make this page live would like some help page wasn't abandoned was waiting for reply, would like to attempt again -Amzingrl (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not post the URL; just the full title of the page will suffice. I've fixed the link for you. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Not done The article has some pretty promotional tones in it and it'd essentially need a complete re-write to fit the neutral tones we require on Wikipedia. I'm not against the idea of you trying to make a new version of it at AfC (although a search doesn't really bring up much of anything to assert notability per WP:GNG), but the version previously deleted would be considered to be unacceptable in its current format. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, I actually do see where you asked for help here at the Teahouse and were given fairly good reasons for why the article did not pass notability guidelines. They also advised you that you needed to re-write the article because it was fairly promotional in tone. I also saw that you re-asked the same question and while you might not have seen the answers to your question, it also makes me wonder if you were just re-asking in the hopes of getting a different answer. I am going to assume WP:GOODFAITH, but any experienced editor will tell you the same that the Teahouse editors did. To rehash what they were saying, most of the sources were unusable for various reasons. This source is pretty much a blog entry (WP:SPS) and we cannot use that to show notability. Unfortunately the majority of the sources are blogs that would not hold up under scrutiny at WP:RS/N or at WP:AfD. The ones about her competition stats really didn't assert notability since she didn't actually win the overall competitions. Notability is really only extended when someone wins a competition and even then, not all competitions count towards notability because there are so many of them in any given area. (The IFBB is notable, but this is just something in general I'm adding.) Others were considered to be WP:PRIMARY, as they were the woman's own website or own YouTube channel. Offhand, this one seems to be the only one that we would consider to be usable per our WP:RS guidelines. The thing to remember is that not all sources are reliable and we are very strict sometimes in what we consider to be usable. Just because a written article exists does not mean that it would be usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Jharkhand Tourism

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Manojnmims (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

please don't delete the page of jharkhand tourism. but you can the separate by the title of Tourism in Jharkhand. because it necessary for the development of jharkhand which shows the separate page of tourism of jharkhand.

  Not done. Please consider expanding the article Jharkhand instead, but please also remember that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

roger madison mmcgaugh

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -24.216.74.62 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  Not done. No deleted page by that name (or variations using proper noun case) can be found, either in main article space or WP:AFC space. Please repair your request. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Credheadz

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Etherialmaster (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Speedily deletion was handled improperly. Whilst in the midst of writing/editing the body text for the page in other software, this occurred. Today 24.05.14 approx lunchtime, we were going through several edits of pages violating our trademark; the offending infringes (namely Sony, EMI) returned all rights in 2011 it has since been our responsibility to 'police' the mark, which is quite difficult monitoring all web activity for violations. Wikipedia suggested through an automated form today the option to create the Credheadz page, which we have been working on since. We do not believe a couple of hours to be sufficient or reasonable time allow`allowance for editing, before the speedy deletion took place.

  Not done. The article had only 4 words in it. Hard to believe you spent two hours writing them. And who is this 'we' you refer to? How many people access the 'Etherialmaster' account?
Also, since it is obvious that you have a conflict of interest regarding this topic, you should read WP:COI before doing anything else, and then create a new article using Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead of main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

please retrive our wiki page...will try provide credible references for the created content.

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Gelli Ravikumar 13:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  Please repair your request - we cannot process malformed requests. Please use the code {{subst:refund|pageName|reasoning}} (replacing pagename with the name of the page you wish to have restored and reasoning with the reason for your request). ~Amatulić (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Amendment: If you are referring to IITB-Student Alumni Relations Cell · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]
  Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion a7. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user RHaworth (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Cankle

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am unable to edit the page and I would like to add a soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry. It seems useful for Wikipedia to at least link to the word's definition if we're not going to explain it here. Seems like something people might look up if they don't know what it is. -Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I created the soft redirect to Wiktionary:cankle without restoring the page history, and fully protected the page to prevent the activity that caused its lengthy deletion and protection logs. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

DPT Laboratories

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Requesting move to draft namespace at Draft:DPT Laboratories or to userspace at User:Northamerica1000/DPT Laboratories1. The company is notable per the sources, and I'd like to examine the article in hopes to improve it. NorthAmerica1000 11:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC) -NorthAmerica1000 11:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you asked the deleting administrator INeverCry? Because this was an A7 deletion, please do that first. If you get no response in a few days (this is a holiday weekend, including Monday, in the United States), let me know. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Amatulic: I have posted a request at User talk:INeverCry. As it's Memorial Day weekend, I'll be patient. Thanks for the advice. NorthAmerica1000 20:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Another Chance

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This was a valid article about a song; looking at the deletion log either it was vandalised or the wrong article was deleted. -Peter James (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Malijhikanda High School

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(This user used the preload form for AFC undeletion, but did not specify the name of the AFC draft they would like undeleted. Consider checking their deleted contributions.) Eliaskhalil52 (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please note that you never submitted the entry for review. When you are ready, you need to click the green notice in the template at the top of the page that says "Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!" I have restored Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Malijhikanda High School. However you are going to have to use more reliable sources than facebook, and discussion forums. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cafe nouf

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Safsaftunis, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Safsaftunis (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Reliable sources that discuss the cafe in some detail are required to establish that it's notable by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Bearskin Group

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page is about an organisation called Bearskin. It is a project for people to see and get involved in, it is not for the purposes of advertising it is information about the organisation that can not be found anywhere else on the internet. -DanBearskin (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Camp Branch

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to create this page with links to Camp Branch (as covered at Mattair Springs and Camp Branch Wetlands Natural Area Preserve. I see that something was deleted and I would like to see what was there. I suspect it wasn't much? Thanks for any assistance. -Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Candleabracadabra: The deleted article is about Camp Branch Correctional Facility in Coldwater, Michigan. I don't think this is what you are looking for. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I will include in the disambig page (with a link to List of Michigan state prisons). Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Tuan Muhamad Faim Tuan Zainal Abidin

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Article was previously deleted after uncontested prod. Then recreated, then BLPprodded, and then unprodded and referenced. Please restore the original 2012 prodded version to restore edit history. (player now meets WP:NFOOTY after 2014 AFC Cup appearance against South China AA as per [1]). -Nfitz (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done, restored the deleted history (which wasn't much, just a handful of edits). ~Amatulić (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That's the catch ... hard to tell if there's any point until you ask. Nfitz (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wrenfoe

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 94.10.83.180, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 94.10.83.180 (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yulo

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The Yulo store is a great store from Kentucky and i'm sure it doesn't affect anyone.Evryone from Kentucky knows it and there is no cpyright.Plaese don't delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbkpk (talk • contribs) 17:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. We also do not undelete A7 (no indication of notability) or G11 (spam) deletions as both require fundamental rewrites to be kept, and thus it's better to start from scratch with those. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The page was just recreated with almost identical content by another new user account Josch12 (talk · contribs).- MrX 18:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Not done To be honest, the content in it could be seen as vaguely promotional in tone. It comes across less like an encyclopedic NPOV entry and more like a personal webspace for the store. Listing the brands it stocks is something that's fine on a personal website but not on a Wikipedia article. We almost never list stuff like that unless it's something that is an exceedingly notable part of the store- which is normally quite rare. For example, Macy's sells shoes but we don't have a list of every brand they sell. Also, listing a shipping time and guarantee also comes across as promotional. On top of all of this, there's nothing on the article to show that the store would even begin to pass our notability guidelines, as existing doesn't mean notable. Being known in a state doesn't mean that it would pass notability guidelines. You have to show it's notable by way of coverage in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I did a search and I'm not finding anything in reliable sources. I have a feeling that this might be an instance of a COI editor, so I will give you this warning: if by some chance there are sources out there, we can't guarantee that the coverage of the store will be automatically positive and articles on Wikipedia do cover "warts and all". If by some chance you are with the company and your intent here is to get more awareness of the company in a positive light, then this can backfire on you. I've actually had one instance where a Hollywood professional came on here to create an extremely positive article for himself, only for it to get challenged for various reasons. It was saved, but the article was far from complimentary and actually talked about several lawsuits and such that he was involved in. Some of the lawsuits were from people who said he basically embezzled money off of them. He tried to make the article more favorable and I think he did try to have the negative information removed, but in the end the negative stuff remained and he ended up with an article that was the opposite of what he wanted. This isn't an isolated case either and this happens more frequently than people would want. Just be cautious about doing stuff like this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

HSC Examination 2014 Question Leak

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -180.234.74.121 (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC) this is a true story and this page has much more evidence what is available in internet.

  Note: The page isn't deleted, therefore there's no reason to undelete it. Please follow the instructions on the deletion tag in order to contest (if a speedy deletion or prod/stickyprod) or argue against (if a deletion debate) deletion. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

American Investigative Society of Cold Cases

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The page is about a notable criminology organization (similar to the Vidocq Society) rather than a company or business, which is the original reason given for its deletion. The group has several notable members, all experts in various fields of criminal investigations and law enforcement and is therefore worthy of inclusion. -LilithMiami (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Organizations qualify under WP:A7, as it's mostly about any groupings of individuals as a whole. I did take a look at the article and I'm offhand inclined to agree with the admin who deleted the page. I don't see anything that would show that the AISCC would pass notability guidelines if this were to be restored and run through WP:AfD. The page also has some fairly promotional tones to it. It doesn't go around asking for money, but the tone is more akin to something you'd find on a private web page for the organization than on a neutral and encyclopedic entry. As far as notable members go, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by notable persons participating in any aspect. Notability is only extended by the organization itself being the focus of in-depth and secondary coverage in reliable sources. I just don't see where the organization has received this coverage and I don't see where it's pass the notability guidelines for organizations. (WP:ORG) I'm sorry- it looks like they do have an admirable goal and are very good at what they do, but organizations must have enough coverage in RS to show they pass our notability guidelines, which are very strict. I think that part of the issue is that the organization is only about a year old. Everything I've found just talk about the group launching, and we'd need far more than that to show that this organization has a depth of coverage. On a side note, if you're related to the organization I'd like to recommend that you read over our WP:COI guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/soft robotics

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, LauMarghe, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. LauMarghe (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

File:IFR-FFR Hybrid Approach.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Image was deleted as an unsourced file, but a satisfactory Volunteer Response Team ticket has confirmed it is under a compatible license with Wikipedia. Thanks, -—Microchip08 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done, image and history restored, new OTRS ticket merged to original, permissions updated. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

HIPrana Undelete Please

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Slavmilo (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to undelete HIPrana. I find wikipedia very confusing to read, therefore I had put this off because I didn't know the requests expire.

On that note, can you please let me know what it is that wasn't working in the past? I cannot find references either.

Thank you in advance,

Slavica Milosevska

  Note: Fixed report to point to correct title; remember that all page titles on Wikipedia are case-sensitive. If you can't find sources for the article, odds are it's not yet ready for a Wikipedia article. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  Done, it is restored for further improvement and resubmission. See Wikipedia:Golden Rule for basic guidance about what is required before the article will be accepted. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Ghost Of Otis

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Tdamico789, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Tdamico789 (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC) I'm working on it -Tdamico789 (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elizabeth Willems

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, DoctorWillems, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. DoctorWillems (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't provide indefinite hosting space for articles on subjects that will likely never be published in main article space. I'm willing to restore this if you can tell me what criteria in WP:ACADEMIC does the subject of this article meet? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

California Stem Cell

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

California Stem Cell · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]

The reason for deleting it was that I didnt type in information fast enough? There is plenty that people could write about the organization formally known as California Stem Cell. Simply to disregard the topic because I didn't write fast enough disregards the notion that we should collaborate on articles to improve upon them and better inform the general public.

Instead of deleting the article because of my slow input speed, there could have been several other approaches to the article. We could have flagged it as needing revision, or someone could have simply helped put in some information.

I find the reason behind the deletion illogical coming from an organization that directly wants to support public knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbone10170 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  Not done. There is no point to restoring an article that has zero content. This is main article space we're talking about here. It isn't a space for drafts. Please prepare the article in your own sandbox or in the Draft namespace (for example, User:Tbone10170/California Stem Cell or Draft:California Stem Cell. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Elsa Cladera de Bravo

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Nadezhda Bravo Cladera, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Nadezhda Bravo Cladera (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  Not done, nothing to do, article is not deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lady Denman Heritage Complex

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Terrancen, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. terrancen (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

UrbanElementzMedia

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your This article is in no way spam nor advertising it's simply telling the story behind the company and it's accomplishment up to date could you please help with article if I'm doing something incorrect. Thank you for your time. here and then click the "Save page" button below -GaldysBezanilla (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  Not done - this page was deleted in accordance with criterion for speedy deletion a7. If you believe that this decision was made in error, or that significant new information has come to light since the deletion, please contact the administrator who carried out the deletion, user Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). If you have already done so, your concerns can be taken to deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chad Van De Keere

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 96.49.123.46, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 96.49.123.46 (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Active Transportation Alliance

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page was deleted by user TParis who decided the organization was not notable enough. He did not bother researching the organization, which was until 2008 the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, and is a 25-year organization with decades' worth biking/transit advocacy work under it's belt who also put on the annual "Bike the Drive" event with 20,000+ participants and have numerous programs across the city and suburbs. It definitely merits a page. -Vitaliyv (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done - this Requests for Undeletion process is only for articles that were deleted uncontroversially, and does not apply to articles deleted after a deletion discussion. Since the article you are here about was deleted after a discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Active Transportation Alliance, it cannot be undeleted through this process. However, if you believe that the outcome of the discussion did not reflect the consensus of the participants, or that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted, you may contact the administrator who closed the discussion. After you do so, if your concerns are not addressed and you still seek undeletion, a request may be made at deletion review. By the way, going to DRV stating that someone "didn't do their research" is not going to get you far: the deleting admin merely summarized the result of a deletion discussion the panda ₯’ 22:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Genesis Geronimo

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -Djgenesisgeronimoofficial (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

printbubble

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm first time wikipedia user, give me a chance to update my article as per the policy. I will update it soon and make it eligible -Printbubble (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User has been indefinitely blocked. —Microchip08 (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Symphony Analytics

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to contest the deletion and retrieve the text. Otherwise, could I please receive advice on what changes I should make to get the post published? Thank you. "Save page" button below -PaulinSweden (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done We generally do not restore articles that were deleted due to WP:G11. The article wasn't entirely promotional, but it did contain several different WP:PUFFERY and WP:PEACOCK words. I'm also concerned that most of the sources on the article were press releases, which are seen as WP:PRIMARY sources and therefore cannot give notability regardless of where it is posted. I can't really find that much out there about the company, so I'm not sure that they would pass notability guidelines even if it was restored and the promotional material removed. Most of what I've found has been reprints of press releases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jevon O'Neill

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 31.221.56.178, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 31.221.56.178 (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vivartana, the ICFP Kolkata Academic Theme

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Bidisha Sarkar Datta, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Bidisha Sarkar Datta (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done and will not be done I'm sorry, but the article has too many issues with it to where I feel comfortable restoring it. The biggest issue is that the page's text reads as unambiguously promotional and would need a complete re-write to meet our guidelines for NPOV. We also need more sources to assert that the college's theme is specifically notable. The coverage seems to be about the college as a whole as opposed to the specific theme and we'd need it to focus predominantly and almost solely on the theme rather than the college as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carbles (Board Game)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Mattg889, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Mattg889 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done The article was primarily a set of instructions on how to play the game and a search didn't bring up anything that would show that this game is ultimately notable enough to really pass WP:AfC and WP:GNG. You'd have to be able to show notability by showing us coverage in reliable sources such as news articles, books written about the game, and in other places that would meet the standards of WP:RS, and I just don't see where these actually seem to exist and as such, restoring this wouldn't really do much because as it stands, I don't know that this will ever pass notability guidelines. It does seem to exist and is popular among some, but popularity and existing do not automatically equal out to notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ Apple Users' Society of Melbourne

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Gmdgmd, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Gmdgmd (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  •   This page has not yet been deleted. Please visit the page to find out how to object to the deletion request. It looks like it was restored back in April and I don't see where anyone has nominated it for deletion as of yet. Please begin editing the page in order to address the reasons it was declined, as AfC is not an indefinite place to host article submissions and I can't see where you've edited this after you requested it be restored the first time back in April. If it goes without any substantial edits and ends up getting nominated for deletion as an abandoned AfC candidate, I can't guarantee that it will be restored a second time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

El Pea

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The music album El Pea (Island Records Sampler) is a valid wikipedia item of interest and in my opinion should not have been deleted. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigKevMinn (talk • contribs) 09:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  •   Not done There are several reasons for this. First is that the article is written in a very casual, almost promotional manner and would require an entire re-write to meet our NPOV standards. It comes across as a fan page or personal review of the compilation as a whole. The second is that the entire article lacks coverage in reliable sources. The thing to remember is that albums do not gain automatic notability by virtue of having notable persons contribute tracks. However given the names of the people on the album, I'd be surprised if there wasn't reviews or coverage out there. Mostly this is due to the article's tone. I have no problem with you wanting to re-write the article, but you will definitely need to be cautious of how you write it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Power (2014 kannada film)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -AKSHAY Powerstar (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Porticor Page

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porticor, was wrongly marked for deletion. It is an important entry because the company created the encryption technology outlined in the text. Homomorphic encryption is extremely important to data security in the cloud. This is no different then any other company that created notable technology -Drcarver (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Drcarver (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  Not done. You're kidding, right? That article was a pure advertisement, and Wikipedia is not a publicity platform. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tony Khindria

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, 168.183.84.12, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. 168.183.84.12 (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sir_TanMay_(Search_Engine)

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please reinstate the page so that I can edit the article and make it suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlett2287 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  Not done. That article was copied from ChaCha (search engine). Consider expanding that one instead.
If you were trying to create a new article, please bear in mind that main article space is not the place to publish drafts. Please work on new articles in your sandbox. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mountain Hold

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lumicall

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Dpocock, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Dpocock (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mainstream Technologies

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I, Budholt, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Budholt (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The PACE Centre, Aylesbury

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Done - as an Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored on request. Please edit the page to address the issues raised when it was declined, and re-submit it; "Articles for creation" is not for the indefinite hosting of material found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_135&oldid=1138663655"